It happened in Australia

[nun]

I wonder what people think of the current trendy economic idea of paying everyone a "living wage"? Just by breathing every working age person would get a base amount of income from the state that would allow a massive reduction in benefits and the administration connected with that. SNAP and housing benefits etc would disappear as would SS payments.

 

[NW-Bound]

Ok, AUS pension and SuperAnnuation are two separate benefits. Further down in the wiki article it seems to say that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia#Effect_on_pensions

IOW, their pension is similar to our SS, and their SA is like our 401k, IRA, etc.
Definitely a complicated situation as is ours. It seems like the push-pull of adjustments to these systems will go on forever.

Their systems are really different.

Their Superannuation is compulsory, while our 401k/IRA is voluntary. Their pension is really welfare and does not require the beneficiares to work at all in their life. So it is not like our SS at all, and is more like SSI that is means and income tested, except that theirs is more generous.

To make ours like theirs requires privatization of the SS system. Use some of the SS or general income tax to fund the welfare portion. The rest of the SS contributions, both employer and employee parts, goes to the individual accounts, and that replaces the current 401k, 403b, FERS, etc... And that is compulsory and the same for everyone.

 

[Sunset]

I wonder what people think of the current trendy economic idea of paying everyone a "living wage"? Just by breathing every working age person would get a base amount of income from the state that would allow a massive reduction in benefits and the administration connected with that. SNAP and housing benefits etc would disappear as would SS payments.

I think it's pretty stupid, as it would kill the incentive to work, and prices on everything would rise since everyone now has an extra $10,000 to spend.

It would also kill the incentive to save, why bother, when they can just raise the living wage.

Why would it not apply to everyone, since otherwise it is ageism.

 

[samclem]

... in the case of our SS, the deal was we take taxes/premiums out of your pay while you are working and you receive retirement benefits... so the money was extracted from us with a promise and expectation... so we view it differently... it was an exchange transaction.

The case for this POV would be stronger if the recipient had any choice in the matter (i.e. could have chosen to not pay SS, or to work somewhere in which SS was not withheld, but instead the person chose to contribute to SS). As it is, SS is a mandatory tax on virtually all employment, so the recipient can't make the case that they made a voluntary choice to pay in, and now they are due the payment that was on the table when they made that choice.
Nope, like the pay stub says, SS is just a tax.

 

[NW-Bound]

The case for this POV would be stronger if the recipient had any choice in the matter (i.e. could have chosen to not pay SS, or to work somewhere in which SS was not withheld, but instead the person chose to contribute to SS). As it is, SS is a mandatory tax on virtually all employment, so the recipient can't make the case that they made a voluntary choice to pay in, and now they are due the payment that was on the table when they made that choice.
Nope, like the pay stub says, SS is just a tax.

That's why I prefer the Australian system. Separate out what is my tax to support society, and what is really mine. Right now, SS is both, and they keep changing the rules.

 

[samclem]

It would also kill the incentive to save, why bother, when they can just raise the living wage.

And if >everyone< gets the increase, clearly there will be a strong reason for the electorate to support these increased payments. It sets up an inherently unstable political dynamic favoring ever-increasing payments, particularly if we maintain a highly "progressive" tax system. Everyone wants cake (and more and more cake) if someone else is buying it.

 

[NW-Bound]

Everybody wins. Nobody will have to work, except for those who really love to work. Kids do not have to attend school either (why, if you can have food and housing for doing nothing). We save a lot of school costs, and current teachers can just stay home to live on that minimum wage.

Everybody stays home to surf the Web and watch TV, using the gadgets that the Chinese build. How are we going to pay the Chinese? Just print more dollars.

 

[Hermit]

We have just as much legal right to SS as a private or public pensioner has to their pension IMO (might not be the supreme court opinion, but there you go). They sent out statements saying this is what you have paid in and this is what your benefit will be on retirement. They have been doing that for years.

It changes over the years. You used to get all of it. Now, based on income, they tax 75% and take some back. They also take some of Medicare back, again, based on income. These "take backs" were not part of the original plans, but have been instituted over time.

 

[gerntz]

Hey, someone's got to pay for those corporate tax cuts.

Australia is cutting corporate taxes?

 

[gerntz]

That's why I prefer the Australian system. Separate out what is my tax to support society, and what is really mine. Right now, SS is both, and they keep changing the rules.

You should prefer it. It's a more more intelligent approach than U.S.

 

[Calico]

We have just as much legal right to SS as a private or public pensioner has to their pension IMO (might not be the supreme court opinion, but there you go). They sent out statements saying this is what you have paid in and this is what your benefit will be on retirement. They have been doing that for years.

They send out statements saying this is what you have paid in and this is what we estimate your benefit will be on retirement.

And right below the estimated benefits, they state "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. <snip>

 

[Hermit]

They send out statements saying this is what you have paid in and this is what we estimate your benefit will be on retirement.

And right below the estimated benefits, they state "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and [-]can[/-] will do so at any time. <snip>

I thought I would fix an obvious government typo.

 

[Calico]

I thought I would fix an obvious government typo.

 

[Viking]

Australia is cutting corporate taxes?

Near the end of the article there was a very brief statement about how new corporate tax cuts would reduce government revenues by $48 billion over the next 10 years.

 

[Fermion]

They send out statements saying this is what you have paid in and this is what we estimate your benefit will be on retirement.

And right below the estimated benefits, they state "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. <snip>

They use the word "paid in" It seems like those are words the court would view as not a tax. I know if I wrote a contract and said someone had paid for something, I would probably be held accountable for providing that something.

 

[brucethebroker]

I think it would be interesting if politicians were subject to the same pension and healthcare system that they enact for the rest of the population.

Hahahahahahaha!!!

Uh, sorry DrRoy, something you said cracked me up.....

+1, there, that's better!